| 1 |
Sorry... I didn't understand exactly what you were trying to do... if you |
| 2 |
want to present the same disks to multiple host you would generally use a |
| 3 |
cluster "aware" application or a cluster "aware" filesystem that would |
| 4 |
establish the quarum and act a more true clustered environment with heartbeat. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Going back to GFS, this is actually capable of doing just that. So I guess |
| 7 |
we are back to GFS :) |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
http://mail.digicola.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Martin:GFS |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
http://www.yolinux.com/TUTORIALS/LinuxClustersAndFileSystems.html |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Should give you enough reading to get started... most of the applications we |
| 15 |
do this with are either read only data sets and don't need clustering |
| 16 |
filesystems or are oracle databases that use ocfs. So I can only speak in |
| 17 |
theory... I would check out what veritas products can do... They have an |
| 18 |
amazing track record on almost all nix platforms (solaris,hp ux) and have a |
| 19 |
lot of clustering capabilities. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Regards, |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
sean |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
On 25-Jan-2007, Brian Kroth wrote: |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> paul k?lle wrote: |
| 29 |
> >Sean Cook schrieb: |
| 30 |
> >> |
| 31 |
> >>GFS is ok if you don't want to mess around with a SAN but it has no where |
| 32 |
> >>near the performance of fiber or iSCSI attached storage. |
| 33 |
> >Aren't those apples and oranges? I thought iSCSI is a block level |
| 34 |
> >protocol and doesn't do locking and such whereas GFS does... |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> This is what I was getting at. I know the basics of working with the |
| 37 |
> SAN to get a set of machines to at least see a storage array. The next |
| 38 |
> step is getting them to read and write to say the same file on a |
| 39 |
> filesystem on that storage array without stepping on each others toes or |
| 40 |
> corrupting the filesystem that lives on top of that storage array. |
| 41 |
> That's where I haven't learned too much yet. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> I hadn't actually planned on using the SAN to boot off of, but that |
| 44 |
> might be an option for easier configuration/software management. I |
| 45 |
> simply wanted to use it almost as if it were an NFS mount that a group |
| 46 |
> of servers stored web content on. The problem I had with that model is |
| 47 |
> that the NFS server is a single point of failure. If on the other hand |
| 48 |
> all the servers are directly attached to the data, any one of them can |
| 49 |
> go down and the others won't care or notice. At least that's the |
| 50 |
> working theory behind it right now. |
| 51 |
> -- |
| 52 |
> gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |
Archives